Newsgroups: comp.lang.dylan
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!rochester!udel!gatech!swrinde!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!lll-winken.llnl.gov!ames!news.hawaii.edu!uhunix4.uhcc.Hawaii.Edu!phinely
From: phinely@uhunix4.uhcc.Hawaii.Edu (Peter Hinely)
Subject: Re: Dylan Competitive Analysis: Dylan vs. SmalltalkAgents?
X-Nntp-Posting-Host: uhunix4.uhcc.hawaii.edu
Message-ID: <D4s93t.LHG@news.hawaii.edu>
Sender: news@news.hawaii.edu
Organization: University of Hawaii
References: <13808.9503011536@subnode.aiai.ed.ac.uk>
Date: Wed, 1 Mar 1995 22:28:41 GMT
Lines: 22

In article <13808.9503011536@subnode.aiai.ed.ac.uk> jeff@aiai.edinburgh.ac.uk (Jeff Dalton) writes:
>> I honestly don't think Dylan people want to get into the habit of saying
>> anything negative about Smalltalk. We think of Smalltalk as much more of an
>> ally in the war against C++, so there's really no value to us in picking a
>> fight. We'd much rather take market share (and mindshare) away from C++,
>> and wish Smalltalk all the success in the world.
>
>I would have thought the same would apply to the various kinds of
>Lisp.  But no.  Dylan is promoted in part by talking against Lisp.
>
>-- jd

It says several places in the Dylan docs that Dylan is meant to compete,
not against Lisp, but against other languages such as C++.

From the DIRM "Apple already has one OODL product: Macintosh Common Lisp. 
Dylan is intended to complement Common Lisp, not to replace it." 

The "Dylan(TM) Competitive Analysis" compares Dylan against C++,
Objective-C, and Smalltalk, though Lisp is mentioned several times.

-peter
